NY-Sen: It's Kirsten Gillibrand(?)

by Jonathan Singer, Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 02:23:49 PM EST

So reports WPIX:

PIX11 News has learned Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand is the choice of Governor David Paterson to fill the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Hillary Clinton.  Two Congressional sources tell PIX News that the Governor will make his announcement in Albany at noon tomorrow.  He has invited members of the state's Democratic Congressional delegation to join him.

[...]

Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who is considered the candidate with the most experience for the Senate, was a frontrunner.  But the Congressional source told Scott, "appointing him would have presented the Governor with a problem of a successor," one that could have led to a political battle in Albany, an appointment influenced by combative Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and vote of the entire legislature.

As one source noted, "in politics you never know," but based on the information they have heard and shared with PIX News Governor Paterson intends to name Kirsten Gillibrand as New York's next Senator at a noon news conference tomorrow in Albany.

I haven't yet seen this story on the wires or reported by other local media organizations, so it's probably worth waiting this one out to hear more. Yet Kirsten Gillibrand's name has certainly been in the mix, as a woman and one who represents in Congress a once-Republican district in upstate New York, so her selection would not come as a complete surprise. But more as we hear it...

Tags: Kirsten Gillibrand, NY-SEN (all tags)

  • 105 Comments
  • 0 recs
  • Share
  • Permalink

Comments

105 Comments

Shadow_head_small
Re: NY-Sen: It's Kirsten Gillibrand(?)

Uh oh. Wayyyy too conservative. Progressives lose again. Fuck.

Gillibrand has described her own voting record as "one of the most conservative in the state." She opposes any path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, supports renewing the Bush tax cuts for individuals earning up to $1 million annually, and voted for the Bush-backed FISA bill that permits wiretapping of international calls. She was one of four Democratic freshmen in the country, and the only Democrat in the New York delegation, to vote for the Bush administration's bill to extend funding for the Iraq war shortly after she entered congress in 2007.

h/t Village Voice

Plus, she voted against the bailout - not a smart move in New York (home of Citibank).

by X Stryker 2009-01-22 02:32PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Comments here....

1.) Progressives are already preparing to raise a stir, locally, if she is the pick. That being said...

2.) I have no doubt she'll be less of a Blue Dog in the Senate than she was in the House if she is the choice.

3.) Lastly, New York loses a Congresscritter in the next reapportionment fight, and I'd bet some money that if a Republican does takeover her seat--which is more than likely and the reason why Gillibrand wasn't a more prominent choice from the get-go--that person will be at the top of the list to be redistricted out of the game after the 2010 Census.

by bobswern 2009-01-22 05:20PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
WPIX-11 is a strange outlet to break this

If anything, it casts a little doubt on the validity of the piece...at least until we hear about it elsewhere.

by bobswern 2009-01-22 05:29PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: NY-Sen: It's Kirsten Gillibrand(?)
yes, I agree. I was going to post some of Gillibrand's worst moves, but you beat me to it. Plus she is totally inexperienced.
Paterson is such a disappointment.
by brooklyngal 2009-01-22 02:35PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: NY-Sen: It's Kirsten Gillibrand(?)

That's unfortunate, and it probably means the permanent loss of a House seat as well.  Not sure what Paterson's calculus is here.

by Steve M 2009-01-22 03:01PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: NY-Sen: It's Kirsten Gillibrand(?)

Sigh.

This is going to invite a primary challenge.

by Skaje 2009-01-22 03:01PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: NY-Sen: It's Kirsten Gillibrand(?)

I hope so. Gillibrand would basically be a New York version of Diane Feinstein or Tom Carper.

by X Stryker 2009-01-22 03:06PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: NY-Sen: It's Kirsten Gillibrand(?)

She will be primaried, and even if she wins the primary, she will decrease Democratic turnout down state, and could possibly lose (a la what happened to Mark Green) if she faces a moderate Republican.

"Gillibrand has described her own voting record as "one of the most conservative in the state." She opposes any path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, supports renewing the Bush tax cuts for individuals earning up to $1 million annually, and voted for the Bush-backed FISA bill that permits wiretapping of international calls. She was one of four Democratic freshmen in the country, and the only Democrat in the New York delegation, to vote for the Bush administration's bill to extend funding for the Iraq war shortly after she entered congress in 2007. While she now contends that she's always opposed the war and has voted for bills to end it, one upstate paper reported when she first ran for the seat: "She said she supports the war in Iraq." In addition to her vote to extend funding, she also missed a key vote to override a Bush veto of a Democratic bill with Iraq timetables."

Two things that stand out- support for the Iraqi War and her position on immigration will hurt her a lot in the downstate area.

I have no idea what the hell Patterson was thinking.

by bruh3 2009-01-22 03:29PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: NY-Sen: It's Kirsten Gillibrand(?)

I'll say, and not just to Killibrand. The NY Post suggests that Paterson just made himself a lot of intra-party enemies by passing over experienced downstate reps like Carolyn Maloney for this two-year veteran, and that he's now left himself open to a challenge from Andrew Cuomo. For once I agree with the Post.

by JohnS 2009-01-23 06:28AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: NY-Sen: It's Kirsten Gillibrand(?)

I should add. This came hot on the heels of NY Dems allowance of a third Bloomberg mayoral term, despite term limits, and +70% voter support for term limits. They allowed it because Paterson wanted them to allow it --because  didn't want to face Bloombucks in the 2010 governors race.

by JohnS 2009-01-23 06:34AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: NY-Sen: It's Kirsten Gillibrand(?)

Better than Kennedy, but I hope she starts leaning to the left in the Senate.

by bsavage 2009-01-22 03:09PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Ticket balance!
It was always going to be about racial/ethnic, sexual and/or geographic balance in 2010, when they'll both run together.
This is the trifecta - - He's male, she's female; he's black, she's white;  he's city, she's upstate.
by kosnomore 2009-01-22 03:14PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Sceptic?

in re: your signature

Do you mean to say that you're a skeptic? Like, with a k? Cuz, ya know, I totally would understand that.

But, see, when you say that you're a sceptic, that conjures the entirely wrong image in my head. You do know what a sceptic tank is full of, right?

by X Stryker 2009-01-22 05:59PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Sceptic?

Agree 100%

The same kind of insight goes into every one of his/her posts too.

by lojasmo 2009-01-23 03:57AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
British spelling.
Like colour.
Broaden your horizons, kids.
There's a big world outside the quad.
by kosnomore 2009-01-23 04:00AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: British spelling.

You know, I would think she is right up your alley being a blue dog, or what ever it is you consider yourself.  So i don't see what the hate is about, nor do your demographic jabs at these candidates mark any kind of broadening horizons, more like reverting to me.

What's your unique or risque label for yourself and your site to bait those advertising bucks? like a neo-con democrat or something, or all the worst traits of of both parties?

by KLRinLA 2009-01-23 04:25PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: British spelling.

I'm a 40 year old professional with a kid, a wife, a house, and several pets.

You don't even know how to spell skeptic.

by lojasmo 2009-01-23 05:15PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
She meant Septic

As in Septic Tank or Septic Shock....

by WashStateBlue 2009-01-23 04:09AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: NY-Sen: It's Kirsten Gillibrand(?)

Great choice if NY were as conservative as her district. But it leaves a lot to be desired considering it isn't.

by Bob Brigham 2009-01-22 03:27PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Be careful what you wish for.

New York could have had a Senator who supported same-sex marriage.  But because she wasn't good enough for the big media (or the little media), we get another homophobe.

But hey.  Bloggers victorious over Kennedys!

by Drew 2009-01-22 03:30PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Be careful what you wish for.

Yes, clearly it was the bloggers that brought down Caroline Kennedy.  Insightful post.

by Steve M 2009-01-22 03:34PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Be careful what you wish for.

Bloggers were not to blame, but they are for not pushing for the most pogressive choice possible. This choice for the state of NY, looking at her stance on immigration alone, will hurt us downstate.

by bruh3 2009-01-22 03:38PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Be careful what you wish for.

That probably wasn't going to happen without one of the progressive candidates making some kind of effort to reach out to the netroots.  Jerry Nadler could have done it, for example.  But it just didn't seem like any of these folks had any interest in running a public campaign for the seat.

by Steve M 2009-01-22 03:50PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Be careful what you wish for.

Maybe, but I think given this pick's record, this will come back to haunt the Democrats. This state just is not that conservative, and her politics generally will not serve even our partisan interest so it should have been something people were pushing regardless of any particular candidate.

by bruh3 2009-01-22 03:56PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Be careful what you wish for.

I just don't know how that happens in practice without some kind of general agreement on who the most progressive candidate is.  I mean, I can't really imagine a slew of blog posts saying nothing more than "Paterson, pick someone progressive!!"

I don't see how the blogs could have gone anywhere productive on this considering how the topic kinda evolved into a mini-replay of the primary wars.

by Steve M 2009-01-22 04:05PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Be careful what you wish for.

I can see how blogs added to the general narrative. Are you arguing that our parcipation in that narrative rather than refutation was not a factor?

If so, then I am going to have to disagree as that's patently as false as claiming we were the sole factor. Both are extremes and do not reflect the reality.

I do know one thing- this pick is horrible for the politics of the state. When I read some of the post here they are not anywhere link to reality. This person has a horrible record and views on immigration, gay rights , the Bush war, etc just to name a few that will harm her down state.

People keep tauting what she will do upstate (as they did with Mark Green's ability to be elected in NYC) and miss the point of the harm she does where it couns down state.

If the "blogs" were useful in anyway they would have been trying to understand local politics and ask which candidate would most reflect the progressive center of NY state rather than coming up with cw about Kennedy or strategies that may work in say a state like Va, but will fail here.

This person does not have CLinton's last name, is not know downstate, and is on the wrong side of issues that matter to people here.

ANd if people think that she's a democrat is  enough, then like I said, they don't understand that while we are heavily democratic area- we aren't adverse to pulling the lever for a Republican if the Democrat comes to be viewed as gainst our interest- again a la Mark green.

by bruh3 2009-01-22 05:39PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Be careful what you wish for.

It was not even as constructive as "pick someone progressive."

The upshot was "kennedy is t3h suxxors."

by lojasmo 2009-01-23 03:59AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Be careful what you wish for.

If King is the GOP candidate, Gillibrand may well be ok.

We're going have to defend five appointed Senators
and it's important for the DSCC not to invest a lot of money in New York.  Gillibrand is a strong fund-raiser.

by esconded 2009-01-22 04:19PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Be careful what you wish for.

Uhhh... what? Considering Gillibrand voted against the bailout, King would be almost certain to take Nassau and Suffolk counties. He might also nab some Hispanic votes.

by X Stryker 2009-01-22 06:04PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Be careful what you wish for.

Especially given her position on immigration. Its like they did not think of the Latino vote at all downstate.

by bruh3 2009-01-22 06:53PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Be careful what you wish for.

It very much was. Net roots were a big push back against clintons and had great support for Obama's success. You guys like to dismiss yourself when it is not convineint

The fact is MSM and blue dogs in NY went after her and net roots joined in, no one was defending her 24/7 bashing. Her PR people didn't help her either.

And Patterson is pathetic. I would vote for a moderate repug over him after this.

by Bury 2009-01-22 03:40PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Be careful what you wish for.

Kennedy can blame herself for most of her problems... she campaigned poorly, made huge, embarrassing gaffes (like her dropping out/in/out/in last night), and apparently has a lot of financial problems that would have been devastating had they come to light...

by LordMike 2009-01-22 03:48PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Be careful what you wish for.

Indeed. Which she was so counterproductive, which makes progressives whining that she wasn't bequeathed look foolish as she blundered so badly she only hurt her cause.

by Bob Brigham 2009-01-22 03:52PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I disagree

Her only flub was saying "you Know" too much and being too open in her bid. The gossip MSM choose to focus on that verbal tick rather than the substance which was very progressive and solid (I read all her interviews). Blue dogs+ MSM + Netroots all banded together to derail her and succeeded. Hope you guys are happy with your new blue dog from the state of new york.

Patterson is going down so is his pick in 2010.

by Bury 2009-01-22 04:01PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: I disagree

I wonder did he think about the impact of an anti-immigration pick (just to add to your point) with regard to Latino voters in NY state?

by bruh3 2009-01-22 04:02PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Give me a break

She's an American non-voter.  On that basis alone, the woman is entirely undeserving of holding public office.  That should be a dealbreaker for everyone, but it seems many were too foolishly starstruck to realize it.

Her bid ended in disgrace, and I think that's exactly what she deserved.

by Mario Democrat 2009-01-22 05:35PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Be careful what you wish for.

Bloggers attacked Kennedy vehemently, even though her views are clearly strongly progressive.  I believe the strong pushback from the left blogosphere factored into her decision to remove herself from contention.  Sometimes we overestimate the power of the netroots, but we should also not underestimate the impact a strongly negative reaction in the blogosphere brings with it.

As a result we are getting another Blue Dog installed in the Senate.  I am not a fan of name based politics, but Kennedy was to 95% in our corner on national politics, which should have counted for a lot in progressive circles.  Now we are getting someone who we may not be able to count on for close votes.

We cut our noses to spite our faces.

by devilrays 2009-01-23 05:39AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
outdated notions of keeping score

You are only looking at the left/right axis. There is also the top/down axis and the forward/backwards axis by which Democrats should judge Democrats in a primary.

And speaking of primaries, hopefully we will have one. And speaking of Democrats, damn do our Governors suck at appointing senators.

by Bob Brigham 2009-01-22 03:38PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: outdated notions of keeping score

False choice: either pick a progressive Kennedy or ther est of the choices are conservative.

Real choice: if you don't pick kennedy still choose a nominee who reflects the political center of ny.

by bruh3 2009-01-22 03:39PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: outdated notions of keeping score

I agree. I don't see why we can't have an appointee with some meritocracy and a proud progressive who is forward looking when it comes to style of politics.

But I will still judge on all three axis, not just left/right.

And in marquee races (of which this is not and will not be outside of the primary), I'm up for giving special consideration to candidates who can effectively frame the national debate.

by Bob Brigham 2009-01-22 03:50PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: outdated notions of keeping score

I don't know about national. But like I keep saying on this pick- I now have images of Mark Green dancin around in my head. There was no consideration it seems of her impact of down state constituencies at all put into this. If there was- they must have skipped over the Democrat who came out against minority groups being harmed by that when running against a good enough moderate Republican. This picks stance on immigration to me- I can't see that going over well  in my neighborhoods. And she will need us to win.

by bruh3 2009-01-22 03:59PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Be careful what you wish for.

At least they'll have a Senator that bothers to vote.  I also have it on good authority that Gillibrand is capable of forming declarative sentences in public.

by Mario Democrat 2009-01-22 05:23PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Swell...

Another Blue Dog in the Senate.

That will help, eh?

Why not Carolyn Maloney?

Too far to the left for Patterson I guess...

by WashStateBlue 2009-01-22 04:24PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: He wanted someone from Upstate

I think your point is important.  Too many people don't realize the vast differences between, well, NYC and upstate.  That's why HRC's record was so admirable in her ability to reach out and bring in support from people that wouldn't often vote Democrat.  I think Gillibrand can do that as well.

by toonsterwu 2009-01-22 04:43PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Swell...

I am never going to understand Dems committing political suicide and trying to kill of the new Spring in Washington before it can put forth even a single blossom. First was Burris a seat that the Cook political Report rates a toss-up, then there is the Colorado Senator who is most likely very vulnerable. Now this. Not only is the figuratively blind New York governor putting Gillibrand's seat in jeopardy, he is probably creating an atmosphere for primary challenge and perhaps a loss in the general elections. Considering that party in power looses seats in the Senate and the House, Dems could well be reduced to 55 seats in the Senate in 2010 and could be battling to hold the House and an open seat in upstate New York definitely does not help the cause.

by Boilermaker 2009-01-22 04:45PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Swell...

One more thing. I fear that Obama may nominate one of the Hawaii Senators for a job one of these days and allow a GOP candidate to be nominated to the Senate by the GOP governor Lingle.

by Boilermaker 2009-01-22 04:49PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I hear ya

Next, he'll apoint Walt Minnick of Idaho to a judgeship.  I feel like im in the Twilight Zone.  

by Kent 2009-01-22 05:00PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Swell...

I can't tell if this is snark or not.  Both Akaka and Inouye are 84 years old.  I don't think they are getting appointed to any new federal job.

by markjay 2009-01-23 12:07AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: A loss in the general election?

because of where she stands on issues . she will turn off a lot off down state voters. thats how it can happen. how do you think bloomberg was able to win ?

by bruh3 2009-01-22 05:00PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Well, I'm from NYC

Bloomberg won because Mark Green was a racist,a nd that pissed off the Latino and black vote in NYC.

Bloomberg ran (and I expect the GOP to now nominate a moderate Republican- perhaps bloomberg).  This moderate will be to the left of our potentially new Democratic Senator on issues like immigration, the Bush war and gay rights, but will add to the GOP's vote count.

No one here or elsewhere is thinking about the voters in my neighborhood. They assume they will get them as a matter of course. You don't understand the identity politics, and quite frankly how our new senator's position on say Immigration will hurt her.

I;ve lived in NYC 8 years now. YOu need to sell this "she will do well in Queens fantasy" to someone who does not know the area, politics and players.

by bruh3 2009-01-22 05:29PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: What?

It was the view of Latinos and blacks that he was a racist. It does not matter what you think. if you don't remember that aspect of the election then I suggest you look it up.

Immigration is just one among several positions which will allienate down state voters. There are others.

here are some links re mark green since you claim you are from "queens" but don't seem to know anything about how the race happened:

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-79497800 .html

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht ml?res=9903E0D71E39F93BA35752C1A9679C8B6 3

"THE 2001 ELECTIONS: THE VOTERS; City's Hispanics Shift, Moving Toward G.O.P."

''The fact that Bloomberg got more Latinos than Giuliani is amazing,'' said Angelo Falcón, senior policy executive with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund and a close follower of city politics. ''It should shake the Democratic party to its foundation.

''For too long, the Democrats have taken the Latino vote for granted,'' Mr. Falcón added. ''They have insulted us. They have ignored us, and still we voted for them. No more.''

That's from the NY Times. Do I think it will happen with this person Patterson choose? I don't know. I think that if she tries to repackage herself maybe she will be okay, but I also know that the idea that she does carry with her huge risks is untrue.

A note about how racial issues continued:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/26/nyregi on/metrocampaigns/26blacks.html?pagewant ed=2

"Black Voters, No Longer a Bloc, Are Up for Grabs in Mayor's Race"

And more:

http://voternewsnetwork.com/VNN/newslett ers/december1.html

"BLACK AND LATINO VOTERS GIVE BLOOMBERG A GOP VICTORY IN NEW YORK MAYOR'S RACE"

So when you say you are from the state, I got to wonder- what part?

The reality is this- her position on immigration may hurt us. Why? We were one of the nexus point- including Mayor Bloomberg- of pushing for a route to legalization.

This is just one issue. There are others.

by bruh3 2009-01-22 09:20PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: You're funny

There absolutely was a belief in NYC's minority communities that Green had exploited race to win the primary.  I honestly can't believe you're even arguing this point.

by Steve M 2009-01-23 04:23AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Never remembered that

You inability to remember recent history is exactly my concern with this pick. That the Democratic leadership is making assumptions they can not make because they are ignoring how the pick will ignore the black and Latino vote. Rather than pretending it didn't happen at the very least I hope they are going to be smart enough to push Gillibrand to the left (even if that means she gets labeled as a flip flopper) because as it stands your position (denial) is not tenable for her suceeding in the position. The worse things the Democrats can do is to ignore Gillibrand's record and do as you are doing deny isues in the the black and latino communities with the party's actions. Not only is what happen with Green not in dispute, but also the the issues surrounding immigration and other issues as to how downstate sees it is also not in dispute. Nor are  the down state position on the war, FISA and other issues in dispute. Pretty much people just ignored all of this, and this will most definitely at the very least lead to a primary challenge and at worse the same tensions that lead to bloomberg.

by bruh3 2009-01-23 06:15AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: You're funny

a moderate rather than hardliner on immigratiion could get through the primary especially if the GOP makes room for such a candidate over others. I am stunned I have to say these things- are you from NY state?

by bruh3 2009-01-23 06:20AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: What?

ps

I forgot to mention. THe reason why the temporary shift happened was due to Bloomberg (as a moderate Republican) capitalizing on the fact it was felt the Democratic candidate (as is potential the case here) was anti Latino. Do I think this can happen again in a Senate race? I don't know for sure, but I do know we open up that door. Only someone not paying attention at all to black and latino politics, not to meant gay (her stance of gay issues are also not good) would not know these things.

by bruh3 2009-01-22 09:22PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: No moderate Republican

What is this "issue"? Are you referring to immigration? a moderate position from the GOP could win in the state. You keep saying things that are patently not true for the state, and I am begining to question if you are from there considering your exaggerations.

by bruh3 2009-01-23 06:17AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Well, I'm from NYC

Long Islanders support gun control. Just look at Carolyn McCarthy.

by X Stryker 2009-01-22 06:11PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Yes they do

Is this going to be your game the whole thread? When you can't argue one issue, you will switch to another?

by bruh3 2009-01-22 09:22PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: He wanted someone from Upstate

So, your implying this will help HIM get relected?  

Hopefully she can move to the middle a bit, she will represent the WHOLE state, not just the upstaters....

by WashStateBlue 2009-01-22 05:20PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: He wanted someone from Upstate

It will definitely help him get reelected in that sense.  I personally liked the idea of an upstate nominee, although not necessarily this one!

by Steve M 2009-01-22 05:24PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: He wanted someone from Upstate

THe reason why they are saying he picked her is money. THat she can bring in money. How exactly will picking up convince Republicans and conservative Democrats to vote for Paterson if they were not already inclined to do so.

by bruh3 2009-01-22 05:31PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: He wanted someone from Upstate

I suspect she would have been a DSCC favorite because of money, and of course the Schumer connection.  I don't really get why Paterson would care a lot about that factor, and it's possible that "they" don't know everything.

The other odd thing is that there have been about 100 leaks from inside and outside the Governor's operation about everything under the sun over the last 24 hours, but this story has been scooped by a single solitary TV station?  I'm starting to have my doubts that it's even true.

by Steve M 2009-01-22 05:39PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: He wanted someone from Upstate

I am not sure if it's true. I hope it's not. I just don't get the politics of it. People keep talking about upstate, but as I said, how does one talk about upstate, and then ignore her impact down state? She's a horrible choice for convincing Democrats to come out to vote rather than sit it out or, if the GOP fields a smart choice, convincing Dems to cross the aisles. Now, maybe she intends to soften her rather hard line (for the state) views, but she is definitely someone who would turn off people in my neighborhood - which probably votes Democrat 95 percent or more. I remember in 2001 - staunch Democrats saying they were never going to vote for Mark green. I don't want to see a repeat of that. Thus, I have to hope you are right, and the right wingers trying to spin this here in this thread are wrong.

by bruh3 2009-01-22 05:45PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: He wanted someone from Upstate

The working theory is that Paterson is thinking more about his own upstate electability than about Gillibrand's downstate electability.  Surely Paterson can take the city vote for granted in his own election.

by Steve M 2009-01-22 05:57PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: He wanted someone from Upstate

The workding theory is bizare. Since when does one guarantees one own electability through one's choice of Senate replacement?

He's got bigger issues in the state- including his position on the budget crisis- which are counter to what the majority wants- amongst other issues.

My point is I don't think in real terms he increases his chances of winning upstate, and weakens the Democrats chances of retaining the seat with pick that does not reflect the state as a whole.Not even close.

Look here at this thread for examples of why. You got people like Lori tauting this as a 'great pick." In what fantasy version fo reality does Lori represents the mainstream of politics in NY state?  She's a conservative Democrat who was busy defending the Palin choice when Palin was choosen.

My point of saying all of this not to impugn but to point o ut reality rather than the common wisdom.

I have no idea whether they will re-invent this choice. But if they hope to win down state- they will have to. As someone else put it on daily kos- this choice is like nominating Lieberman.

The people here who are defending it aren't looking at her according to whether her politics represents the state or just her district.

The state itself by and large has been moving left over the last cycles. For the first time in decades Dems control the legislature because of this shift. This is a move right- how does that make any sense except in the bizaro world of rightward shifts are always the right choice?

Like I said- Mark Green is how I see this choice. Everyone was certainty he would win too. They did so because they too for granted his impact in reliably democratic enclaves. People are making the same mistake here.

by bruh3 2009-01-22 06:49PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: He wanted someone from Upstate

Well, it seems like a logical theory to me, but clearly you disagree for some reason.  Maybe Paterson is just stupid and made the pick for no reason.

by Steve M 2009-01-22 07:37PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: He wanted someone from Upstate

If you  disagree with my reasoning, please define why rather than pretending I called the Dems "stupid."

I was debating whether it's good idea to choose a conservative Dem in a state moving to the left, especially where that conservative is on the right on issues that are hot buttons for a lot of down state voters like immigration. I gave a practical example of how such maneuvers have hurt Dems in the past in elections here downstate. Do  you mean to say that's not a "reason." if so, why not?

Patterson, and the Dem leadership are falliable.  So am I. They make mistakes. Look at his budgetary choices, and the Democrat legislature's reaction to it this week.  I mistakes too. But you didn't explaiin why I am wrong here.  You simply responded with sarcasm and snark. I am curious- do you live in NY?

by bruh3 2009-01-22 08:19PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: He wanted someone from Upstate

I would challenge the notion that the whole of NY is moving as much to the left as it is a situation where the Republicans have simply failed poorly in their stewardship.  I spent many years upstate and time in the city as well and I just don't think it is a marked shift that you think.  I find it hard to compare her to Green - Green was a horrible candidate, and by most accounts, people like Kirsten.  With the growth and change in upstate politics over the last couple years, I think your suggestion of discounting the upstate for the downstate votes would have been flawed for Dems statewide.

In saying that, I'm not saying she's perfect.  But I think she's more an raw HRC than a Mark Green.  What she has to balance is appeasing her constituency versus ideals.

by toonsterwu 2009-01-22 11:02PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: He wanted someone from Upstate

She is to the right of the state as whole on hot button issues, and I think this will come back to bite us in the ass because she will either keep the positions (which will harm her if a GOp candidate moves to the left of her) or change them (in which case she will be labeled as a flip floppr on issues and they will make it about character).

by bruh3 2009-01-23 06:08AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: He wanted someone from Upstate

I live in NJ, I work in NY.  You seem to think that I'm defending Paterson's pick, when all I'm doing is explaining why it made apparent sense from his perspective.  Paterson is concerned about upstate votes for his next election, so he made a big gesture towards upstate by giving them a Senator.  I really don't know why this seems bizarre to you as it's no different than South Jersey wanting representation, downstate Illinois wanting representation, etc, etc.

by Steve M 2009-01-23 03:05AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: He wanted someone from Upstate

I am asking, however, about whether or not, the Senate pick (for us to retain the seat) makes sense as to downstate New York given how the choices record will affect her abilities with voters. I am not sure how telling me that Paterson thinks it will help him this answers the concern over retaining the seat, and Gillibrand's record on issues and how that record will harm her with Latino, gay and black voters.

by bruh3 2009-01-23 06:06AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: He wanted someone from Upstate

Paterson wanted someone from upstate. Fine. But to pick someone with all of two years service in the House? How can Paterson possibly claim she's the best person for the job? He may have  just won over a bunch of upstaters and moderates with this obviously political pick, but NYC libs control the $$$ and they're gonna be POed! Paterson just left Gillibrand and himself open to primary challenges in 2010.

by JohnS 2009-01-23 06:47AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: He wanted someone from Upstate

One primary challenge has already been announced. As I said in this thread- some of the conservatives here tauting this as a 'geat move" and "great pick" no nothing of NY. This pick will hit like a lead ballon amongst people here.

by bruh3 2009-01-23 07:02AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: She's not Mark Green

Her position on gun control and immigration and gay marriage are toxic to keey democratic constituencies. She's actually exactly the same as mark green, and no democrat can win the state of NY without doing extremely well in NY especially if the GOP fields a moderate candidate who is too the left of her on these issues, which does not require much moderate considering how conservative her positions are on these hot button issues. You can keep pretending I am wrong all you want, but your wishful thinking is not reality. She's already facing a primary challenge even before her name is announced due to her position. In the reality based world- that's not a good sign.

by bruh3 2009-01-23 07:05AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Patterson

Patterson is a machine Democrat. I don't see that happening given the economic situation the state is in right now. The best thing he can do for  upstate ny (which was suffereing even before the downturn) is to turn around the economic situation. No one will care that he choose someone from upstate except bloggers such as yourself if the economic situation does not turn around. It's really that simple. And on that front he's been making poor decisions. Look, I like Patterson just fine. He's just making poor long term decisions,a nd giving people no real reason to vote for him.

by bruh3 2009-01-22 09:11PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Patterson

Patterson is a machine Democrat. I don't see that happening given the economic situation the state is in right now. The best thing he can do for  upstate ny (which was suffereing even before the downturn) is to turn around the economic situation. No one will care that he choose someone from upstate except bloggers such as yourself if the economic situation does not turn around. It's really that simple. And on that front he's been making poor decisions. Look, I like Patterson just fine. He's just making poor long term decisions,a nd giving people no real reason to vote for him.

by bruh3 2009-01-22 09:11PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Talk to Upstate Democrats recently

Upstater feel ignored due to their economic situation which is actually a product of nothing getting done in Albany. There is littel to no chance that this pick will convince them that their interests are being considered because it will bring no resources to those regions fro the federal govt.

by bruh3 2009-01-23 07:06AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: NY-Sen: It's Kirsten Gillibrand(?)

I'm a fan of the move.  It's a good political move as well - she can win upstate, and NYC isn't going to drop her for a Republican.

Add in her relationship with Schumer, and I think this is a very good move for the State of New York.

by toonsterwu 2009-01-22 04:41PM | 0 recs
4a2fab88-ed3b-47a4-8f14-3ec8a24504ac_normal
Re: NY-Sen: It's Kirsten Gillibrand(?)

A pretty good move if so.

by Jerome Armstrong 2009-01-22 04:51PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: NY-Sen: It's Kirsten Gillibrand(?)

I think you should stick to the VA/Dc area if you think picking anti immigration person is a smart move in NY state

by bruh3 2009-01-22 05:01PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: NY-Sen: It's Kirsten Gillibrand(?)

Breaking: Jerome no longer interested in progressives.

by X Stryker 2009-01-22 06:56PM | 0 recs
4a2fab88-ed3b-47a4-8f14-3ec8a24504ac_normal
Re: NY-Sen: It's Kirsten Gillibrand(?)

Well see, from what I know, talking to her once, she's got a progressive mindset. I think we'll like the way she votes.

by Jerome Armstrong 2009-01-22 09:53PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: NY-Sen: It's Kirsten Gillibrand(?)

Agreed.  She's not going to be on the far left of the spectrum, but I think she's more progressive as well, but that she curbed some of it to represent her constituency, which isn't the worst thing.  People don't remember the bashing that she took vs. Sweeney early on - she had to show she was "legit" to maintain her spot.  I really think she's closer to a young HRC than many are giving her credit for, and that she may creep into the national discussions in the next decade

by toonsterwu 2009-01-22 11:06PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: NY-Sen: It's Kirsten Gillibrand(?)

Just to clarify, since this seems like it'll be a touchy issue -

by legit, I was simply referencing how her constituency felt about her.  Sweeney bashed her hard early on, and there was some traction, but then she started picking some issues and moving to being more in line with her constituency, and soon, she gained traction, iirc the campaign.

by toonsterwu 2009-01-22 11:16PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: NY-Sen: It's Kirsten Gillibrand(?)

I really think she's closer to a young HRC than many are giving her credit for

Uh-oh.  Incoming fire expected. I'll bet if you start a new diary on this topic you can get 200 comments.

by markjay 2009-01-23 12:11AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: NY-Sen: It's Kirsten Gillibrand(?)

Her record is out of accord with the state. She's already got a primary challenge before Patterson has even made the announcement. that should tell you something regardless of how you are now saying she's progressive. Being anti immigrant in a state that's got a large latino and minority population is not progressive.

by bruh3 2009-01-23 07:09AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Bad choice

We need her to hold NY-20 at least until redistricting can make it more Dem-friendly.
by admiralnaismith 2009-01-22 04:54PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: NY-Sen: It's Kirsten Gillibrand(?)

Well, if she stays as conservative as she's needed to as a rep, then she won't survive a primary.  She will need to be, at the very least, a reliable caucus vote when they need her... It think it will be OK... she'll become mainstream to satisfy statewide voters and she can call on her "conservative" past to help with upstate votes as well...

by LordMike 2009-01-22 04:55PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Very stupid move

NY-20 is not holdable by any other Democrat and Paterson is likely setting setting up a very competitive primary for the Senate seat now.  Gillibrand would be a perfect Senator for a state like Missouri, but far to the right of New York.  This is probably the worst appointment move I have seen since 1977 when Gov. Wendell Anderson of Minnesota appointed himself to Vice President Mondale's vacant Senate seat.  The result:  Anderson loses the Senate seat to Republican Rudy Boschwitz and the guy that took over the governors mansion also lost to a Republican.  

by Kent 2009-01-22 04:58PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: WTF?

Her views do not represent the state and is no where close. She would make sense in a state like VA- hence Jerome's endorsement - but in NY state will carry a lot of liabilities. Many constituent groups, I am going to guess will be gunning for her in the primary.

by bruh3 2009-01-22 05:33PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I'd be thrilled with Gillibrand

I live in Brooklyn with a 2nd home in NY-20. I've always been so impressed by Gillibrand.

I wrote a diary touting Gillibrand about 2 months ago BC (Before Caroline). http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/11/21/951 55/773

by twinmom 2009-01-22 04:59PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: I'd be thrilled with Gillibrand

she is a great pick

by lori 2009-01-22 05:15PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I live in Kirstin Gillibrand's district

She won it in the last election with 62% of the vote.  People here think very highly of her and she is more progressive than many realize.

People here are not thrilled with Bush and the GOP and the right candidate could keep it democratic.  

by laternighter 2009-01-22 05:16PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Agreed

I already switched my voter registration to my NY-20 address. My solid Dem vote is needed more there than in Brooklyn!

I'll work my butt off for whoever runs for Gillibrand's slot!

by twinmom 2009-01-22 05:27PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Were going to need every vote

To even have a chance a special election.  

by Kent 2009-01-22 05:45PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Im sorry, but Bush is gone

Were not going to be able to run against him anymore, unfortunately.  

by Kent 2009-01-22 05:46PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Im sorry, but Bush is gone

Generally agree.

by bruh3 2009-01-22 05:55PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
GO BIG GREEN!!!

I couldn't be happier with this pick, considering Ms. Gillibrand is a Dartmouth '88 and I'm an '01.

Hillary is fond of her, from what I understand.

And the fact that a lot of commenters on this blog are turned off by her for her supposed un-progressive beliefs, I'm that much more inclined to root for her.

And by the way, I'm baaaaaaaaack.

Democrats are allowed to protect gun ownership and represent more conservative values.

This pick is spot on!!!!!

by Zeitgeist9000 2009-01-22 05:17PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: NY-Sen: It's Kirsten Gillibrand(?)

One possible candidate in the 20th is Kelly Keck, who ran a credible campaign against Assemblyman Cliff Crouch in the 107th Assembly District in 2006.   Lets hope he runs.

by nytrialman 2009-01-22 05:23PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: NY-Sen: It's Kirsten Gillibrand(?)

Keck got pummelled in that race, losing by 20%.  

by Kent 2009-01-22 05:44PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: NY-Sen: It's Kirsten Gillibrand(?)

Gillibrand definitely wouldn't be my first choice, but ANYONE is better than Caroline.  Is it too late to appoint Maloney though? :/

by Mario Democrat 2009-01-22 05:24PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: NY-Sen: It's Kirsten Gillibrand(?)

NY gets Gillibrand. IL gets Burris. Governors suck.

Both states need special election laws.

by antiHyde 2009-01-22 06:27PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Why this pick?? Is the Governor Blind?

by Pravin 2009-01-22 09:52PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
All I can say is that its a stupid choice

It will cost Democrats a House seat and possibly a Senate seat in a year that was already going to be tough.  

by Kent 2009-01-22 09:52PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: NY-Sen: It's Kirsten Gillibrand(?)

I like the fact that she voted against the bailout which was a theft of our money. Democrats who voted for the bailout should be ashamed of what they did. Skeptics like us have been proven right on the unaccountability of our tax dollars.

People crying about the bush tax cuts for upto $1M in income that she supported should be more worried about the bailout money lost than rich taxpayers paying less.

I could care less if the NRA likes her.

However, I hate the fact that she is BUsh enabling Democrat by supporting his worst policies like FISA and the Iraq war. Why do we need such bluedogs in states like NY and CA? We have enough conservative states where we will need blue dogs. No need to have one in NY.

by Pravin 2009-01-23 05:40AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------